Contact

Research & Scholarship

Current Research and Scholarly Interests

Dr. Banerjee is the Director of Endoscopy at the Stanford University Medical Center. His research interests include evaluation of advanced endoscopic procedures (ERCP, choledochoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound) in the diagnosis and management of benign and malignant pancreatic and biliary disease. Additional interests include the development of new endoscopic devices and instruments.

Abstract

Bile duct surgery (BDS), percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC), and ERCP are alternative interventions used to treat biliary disease. Our aim was to describe trends in ERCP, BDS, and PTC on a nationwide level in the United States.We used the National Inpatient Sample to estimate age-standardized utilization trends of inpatient diagnostic ERCP, therapeutic ERCP, BDS, and PTC between 1998 and 2013. We calculated average case fatality, length of stay, patient demographic profile (age, gender, payer), and hospital characteristics (hospital size and metropolitan status) for these procedures.Total biliary interventions decreased over the study period from 119.8 to 100.1 per 100,000. Diagnostic ERCP utilization decreased by 76%, and therapeutic ERCP utilization increased by 35%. BDS rates decreased by 78% and PTC rates by 24%. ERCP has almost completely supplanted surgery for the management of choledocholithiasis. Fatality from ERCP, BDS, and PTC have all decreased, whereas mean length of stay has remained stable. The proportion of Medicare-insured, Medicaid-insured, and uninsured patients undergoing biliary procedures has increased over time. Most of the increase in therapeutic ERCP and decrease in BDS occurred in large, metropolitan hospitals.Although therapeutic ERCP utilization has increased over time, the total volume of biliary interventions has decreased. BDS utilization has experienced the most dramatic decrease, possibly a consequence of the increased therapeutic capacity and safety of ERCP. ERCPs are now predominantly therapeutic in nature. Large urban hospitals are leading the shift from surgical to endoscopic therapy of the biliary system.

Abstract

The 6-minute withdrawal time for colonoscopy, widely considered the standard of care, is controversial. The skill and technique of endoscopists may be as important as, or more important than, withdrawal time for adenoma detection. It is unclear whether a shorter withdrawal time with good technique yields an acceptable lesion detection rate. Our objective was to evaluate a 3-minute versus a 6-minute withdrawal time by using segmental tandem colonoscopy.We performed a prospective, randomized trial by using 4 expert endoscopists. Patients were randomized to a 3-minute or a 6-minute initial withdrawal, each followed by a tandem second 6-minute withdrawal. All polyps were removed. The primary outcomes were adenoma miss rates (AMRs), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) rates, and adenoma detection rates (ADRs).A total of 99 and 101 patients were enrolled in the 3-minute and 6-minute withdrawal groups, respectively. The AMR was significantly higher in the 3-minute withdrawal group (48.0% vs 22.9%; P = .0001). After controlling for endoscopist, patient age and/or sex, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, and size and/or location and/or morphology of adenoma, the AMR remained significantly higher in the 3-minute withdrawal group (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-5.15; P = .0001). The ADR was similar between both groups (39.2% vs 40.6%; P = .84). However, the mean APC rate was significantly lower in the 3-minute withdrawal group (0.55 vs 0.80; P = .0001).The AMR was significantly higher, and the APC rate was significantly lower in the 3-minute withdrawal group versus the 6-minute withdrawal group. Despite expert technique, a shorter withdrawal time is associated with an unacceptably high AMR and low APC rate. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01802008.).

Abstract

Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas is associated with significant recurrence rates. After salvage endoscopic treatment of recurrences, there is a significant rate of second recurrences. There is a paucity of data on the efficacy and safety of continued endoscopic treatment after a second recurrence.Consecutive patients with recurrent adenomas after initial piecemeal EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas >2 cm were reviewed. We assessed the feasibility, safety and efficacy of continued endoscopic treatment in these patients.Sixty-four patients with 70 recurrent lesions were identified. All were retreated endoscopically. Follow-up colonoscopy (mean interval 6.4 months) was performed on 62/70 lesions (89 %), and a second recurrence was found in 21/62 (34 %). One patient underwent surgery for a circumferential adenoma of the ileocecal valve. The other 20 lesions were treated endoscopically. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed on 15/20 (75 %) and demonstrated a third recurrence in 3/15 (20 %). One was a deep T1 cancer; curative surgery was performed. The other two patients each had one additional endoscopic treatment and both had no recurrence on subsequent colonoscopy. There were two complications: Both were delayed bleeds after treatment of the first recurrence. A mean of 1.3 endoscopic procedures was required to achieve a cure (range 1-3) for recurrent adenomas after piecemeal EMR.Endoscopic treatment of patients with second recurrences is safe and effective, but is associated with a significant rate of additional recurrences. Continued endoscopic treatment of patients with multiple recurrences is associated with high cure rates, low complication rates and a low risk of progression to malignancy.

Abstract

The increasing global burden of obesity and its associated comorbidities has created an urgent need for additional treatment options to fight this pandemic. Endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) provide an effective and minimally invasive treatment approach to obesity that would increase treatment options beyond surgery, medications, and lifestyle measures. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Bariatric Endoscopy Task Force comprising experts in the subject area and the ASGE Technology Committee Chair to specifically assess whether acceptable performance thresholds outlined by an ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations (PIVI) document for clinical adoption of available EBTs have been met. After conducting a comprehensive search of several English-language databases, we performed direct meta-analyses by using random-effects models to assess whether the Orbera intragastric balloon (IGB) (Apollo Endosurgery, Austin, Tex) and the EndoBarrier duodenal-jejunal bypass sleeve (DJBS) (GI Dynamics, Lexington, Mass) have met the PIVI thresholds. The meta-analyses results indicate that the Orbera IGB meets the PIVI thresholds for both primary and nonprimary bridge obesity therapy. Based on a meta-analysis of 17 studies including 1683 patients, the percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) with the Orbera IGB at 12 months was 25.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.47%-29.41%) (random model) with a mean difference in %EWL over controls of 26.9% (95% CI, 15.66%-38.24%; P ≤ .01) in 3 randomized, controlled trials. Furthermore, the pooled percentage of total body weight loss (% TBWL) after Orbera IGB implantation was 12.3% (95% CI, 7.9%–16.73%), 13.16% (95% CI, 12.37%–13.95%), and 11.27% (95% CI, 8.17%–14.36%) at 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation, respectively, thus exceeding the PIVI threshold of 5% TBWL for nonprimary (bridge) obesity therapy. With the data available, the DJBS liner does appear to meet the %EWL PIVI threshold at 12 months, resulting in 35% EWL (95% CI, 24%-46%) but does not meet the 15% EWL over control required by the PIVI. We await review of the pivotal trial data on the efficacy and safety of this device. Data are insufficient to evaluate PIVI thresholds for any other EBT at this time. Both evaluated EBTs had ≤5% incidence of serious adverse events as set by the PIVI document to indicate acceptable safety profiles. Our task force consequently recognizes the Orbera IGB for meeting the PIVI criteria for the management of obesity. As additional data from the other EBTs become available, we will update our recommendations accordingly.

Abstract

Better diagnostic tools are needed to differentiate pancreatic cyst subtypes. A previous metabolomic study showed cyst fluid glucose as a potential marker to differentiate mucinous from non-mucinous pancreatic cysts. This study seeks to validate these earlier findings using a standard laboratory glucose assay, a glucometer, and a glucose reagent strip.Using an IRB-approved prospectively collected bio-repository, 65 pancreatic cyst fluid samples (42 mucinous and 23 non-mucinous) with histological correlation were analyzed.Median laboratory glucose, glucometer glucose, and percent reagent strip positive were lower in mucinous vs. non-mucinous cysts (P<0.0001 for all comparisons). Laboratory glucose<50 mg/dl had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 57% (LR+ 2.19, LR- 0.08). Glucometer glucose<50 mg/dl had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 78% (LR+ 4.05, LR- 0.15). Reagent strip glucose had a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 74% (LR+ 3.10, LR- 0.26). CEA had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 83% (LR+ 4.67, LR- 0.27). The combination of having either a glucometer glucose<50 mg/dl or a CEA level>192 had a sensitivity of 100% but a low specificity of 33% (LR+ 1.50, LR- 0.00).Glucose, whether measured by a laboratory assay, a glucometer, or a reagent strip, is significantly lower in mucinous cysts compared with non-mucinous pancreatic cysts.

Abstract

Without a reliable biopsy technique for pancreatic cysts, consensus-based guidelines are used to guide surgical utilization. The primary objective of this study was to characterize the proportion of operations performed outside of these guidelines.A 5-year retrospective review between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2012, was performed of consecutive patients seen at a single tertiary medical center for a pancreatic cyst. Manual chart review for relevant clinical variables and cyst characteristics was performed.During this period, 148 patients underwent surgery, and of these, 23 (16 %) patients had no high-risk criteria by the 2006 Sendai criteria. None of these harbored high-grade dysplastic or cancerous lesions. A high cyst carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (35 %), patient anxiety (26 %), and physician concern (22 %) were explicit reasons to proceed to surgery. An elevated cyst CEA level >192 ng/ml was the most significant predictor (OR 5.14 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.47-18.0) for surgery without high-risk criteria.A high cyst CEA level was significantly associated with the decision to operate outside of consensus-based guidelines. The misuse of cyst CEA in the management of pancreatic cysts negatively impacts patient anxiety, increases physician uncertainty, and leads to surgery with minimal benefit.

Abstract

Patients are exposed to radiation during ERCP, and this may increase their lifetime risk of the development of cancer and other deleterious radiation effects.To evaluate the association between the endoscopist's ERCP volume and the patient radiation dose during ERCP.Single-center, retrospective study.Tertiary referral center.A total of 197 patients undergoing 331 ERCPs.Patient radiation exposure parameters including fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, dose area product, and effective dose for all ERCPs performed at our academic medical center by 2 high-volume endoscopists (HVEs) (≥200 ERCPs/year) and 7 low-volume endoscopists (LVEs). Radiation exposure for each ERCP was adjusted against a validated procedure complexity scale and the Stanford Fluoroscopy Complexity Score, which was created based on the numbers of interventions that would mandate additional radiation exposure.ERCPs performed by LVEs were associated with a significantly higher median total radiation dose (98.30 mGy vs 74.13 mGy), dose area product (13.98 Gy-cm(2) vs 8.8 Gy-cm(2)), and effective dose (3.63 mSv vs 2.28 mSv), despite lower median Stanford Fluoroscopy Complexity Scores (3.0 vs 6.0) compared with HVEs. No significant difference was noted in median fluoroscopy time (4.0 minutes vs 3.30 minutes) between LVEs and HVEs.Retrospective, single-center study at a tertiary referral center.ERCPs performed by LVEs are associated with significantly higher radiation exposure to patients compared with those performed by HVEs despite the fact that procedures performed by HVEs are of greater complexity.

Abstract

To evaluate the new RetroView™ colonoscope and compare its ability to detect simulated polyps "hidden" behind colonic folds with that of a conventional colonoscope, utilizing anatomic colon models.Three anatomic colon models were prepared, with twelve simulated polyps "hidden" behind haustral folds and five placed in easily viewed locations in each model. Five blinded endoscopists examined two colon models in random order with the conventional or RetroView™ colonoscope, utilizing standard withdrawal technique. The third colon model was then examined with the RetroView™ colonoscope withdrawn initially in retroflexion and then in standard withdrawal. Polyp detection rates during standard and retroflexed withdrawal of the conventional and RetroView™ colonoscopes were determined. Polyp detection rates for combined standard and retroflexed withdrawal (combination withdrawal) with the RetroView™ colonoscope were also determined.For hidden polyps, retroflexed withdrawal using the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (85% vs 12%, P = 0.0001). For hidden polyps, combination withdrawal with the RetroView™ colonoscope detected more polyps than the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (93% vs 12%, P ≤ 0.0001). The RetroView™ colonoscope in "combination withdrawal" was superior to other methods in detecting all (hidden + easily visible) polyps, with successful detection of 80 of 85 polyps (94%) compared to 28 (32%) polyps detected by the conventional colonoscope in standard withdrawal (P < 0.0001) and 67 (79%) polyps detected by the RetroView™ colonoscope in retroflexed withdrawal alone (P < 0.01). Continuous withdrawal of the colonoscope through the colon model while retroflexed was achieved by all endoscopists. In a post-test survey, four out of five colonoscopists reported that manipulation of the colonoscope was easy or very easy.In simulated testing, the RetroView™ colonoscope increased detection of hidden polyps. Combining standard withdrawal with retroflexed withdrawal may become the new paradigm for "complete screening colonoscopy".

Abstract

Although there are no randomized, controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients, substantial indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of ERC in symptomatic PSC patients with a dominant stricture. Currently, cumulative evidence supports the role of ERC with endoscopic dilation with or without additional short-term stent placement for symptomatic PSC patients with a dominant stricture. Differentiating benign dominant strictures from cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) remains difficult; however, newer endoscopic techniques and advanced cytologic techniques are likely to improve sensitivity for the diagnosis of CCA over that achieved by traditional cytology brushing alone.

Abstract

Despite advances in endoscopic treatment, many colonic adenomas are still referred for surgical resection. There is a paucity of data on the suitability of these lesions for endoscopic treatment.To analyze the results of routine repeat colonoscopy in patients referred for surgical resection of colon polyps without biopsy-proven cancer.Retrospective review.University hospital.Patients referred to a colorectal surgeon for surgical resection of a polyp without biopsy-proven cancer.Repeat colonoscopy.The rate of successful endoscopic treatment.There were 38 lesions in 36 patients; 71% of the lesions were noncancerous and were successfully treated endoscopically. In 26% of the lesions, previous removal was attempted by the referring physician but was unsuccessful. The adenoma recurrence rate was 50%, but all recurrences were treated endoscopically and none were cancerous. Two patients were admitted for overnight observation. There were no major adverse events.Single center, retrospective.In the absence of biopsy-proven invasive cancer, it is appropriate to reevaluate patients referred for surgical resection by repeat colonoscopy at an expert center.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A root cause analysis was performed on the occurrence of gastroduodenal ulceration after hepatic radioembolization (RE). We aimed to identify the risk factors in the treated population and to determine the specific mechanism of nontarget RE in individual cases. METHODS: The records of 247 consecutive patients treated with yttrium-90 RE for primary (n = 90) or metastatic (n = 157) liver cancer using either resin (n = 181) or glass (n = 66) microspheres were reviewed. All patients who developed a biopsy-proven microsphere-induced gastroduodenal ulcer were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on baseline parameters and procedural data to determine possible risk factors in the total population. Individual cases were analyzed to ascertain the specific cause, including identification of the culprit vessel(s) leading to extrahepatic deposition of the microspheres. RESULTS: Eight patients (3.2 %) developed a gastroduodenal ulcer. Stasis during injection was the strongest independent risk factor (p = 0.004), followed by distal origin of the gastroduodenal artery (p = 0.004), young age (p = 0.040), and proximal injection of the microspheres (p = 0.043). Prolonged administrations, pain during administration, whole liver treatment, and use of resin microspheres also showed interrelated trends in multivariate analysis. Retrospective review of intraprocedural and postprocedural imaging showed a probable or possible culprit vessel, each a tiny complex collateral vessel, in seven patients. CONCLUSION: Proximal administrations and those resulting in stasis of flow presented increased risk for gastroduodenal ulceration. Patients who had undergone bevacizumab therapy were at high risk for developing stasis.

Abstract

Infection of the biliary tract, or cholangitis, is a potentially life-threatening condition. Bile duct stones are the most common cause of biliary obstruction predisposing to cholangitis. The key components in the pathogenesis of cholangitis are biliary obstruction and biliary infection. Several underlying mechanisms of bactibilia have been proposed. Characteristic clinical features of cholangitis include abdominal pain, fever, and jaundice. A combination of clinical features with laboratory tests and imaging studies are frequently used to diagnose cholangitis. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the best diagnostic test. Less invasive imaging tests may be performed initially in clinically stable patients with uncertain diagnoses.

Abstract

Biliary and pancreatic stents are used in a variety of benign and malignant conditions including strictures and leaks and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Both plastic and metal stents are safe, effective, and easy to use. SEMSs have traditionally been used for inoperable malignant disease. Covered SEMSs are now being evaluated for use in benign disease. Increasing the duration of patency of both plastic and metal stents remains an important area for future research.

Abstract

Background and Study Aims. The nonlifting polyp sign of invasive colon cancer is considered highly sensitive and specific for cancer extending beyond the mid-submucosa. However, prior interventions can cause adenomas to become nonlifting due to fibrosis. It is unclear whether nonlifting adenomas can be successfully treated endoscopically. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes in a referral practice incorporating a standardized protocol of attempted endoscopic resection of nonlifting lesions previously treated by biopsy, polypectomy, surgery, or tattoo placement. Patients and Methods. Retrospective review of patients undergoing colonoscopy by one endoscopist at two hospitals found to have nonlifting lesions from prior interventions. Lesions with biopsy proven invasive cancer or definite endoscopic features of invasive cancer were excluded. Lesions ≥ 8 mm were routinely injected with saline prior to attempted endoscopic resection. Polypectomy was performed using a stiff snare, followed by argon plasma coagulation (APC) if necessary. Results. 26 patients each had a single nonlifting lesion with a history of prior intervention. Endoscopic resection was completed in 25 (96%). 22 required snare resection and APC. 1 patient had invasive cancer and was referred for surgery. The recurrence rate on follow-up colonoscopy was 26%. All of the recurrences were successfully treated endoscopically. There was 1 postprocedure bleed (4%), no perforations, and no other complications. Conclusions. The majority of adenomas that are nonlifting after prior interventions can be treated successfully and safely by a combination of piecemeal polypectomy and ablation. Although recurrence rates are high at 26%, these too can be successfully treated endoscopically.

Abstract

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2011 using the keywords "bariatric," "endoscopic," "intragastric balloon," "duodenojejunal bypass sleeve," and "transoral gastroplasty." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

Hyaluronic acid (HA) provides a long-lasting and distinct mucosal elevation for EMR, but expense and inconvenience have limited its adoption.To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an over-the-counter 0.15% HA preparation for EMR.Retrospective study.Veterans Administration Hospital and university hospital.30 patients with a total of 32 colonic lesions and 1 duodenal lesion.EMR by using HA.En bloc resection rate and complications.EMR was successful in all cases. En bloc resection was achieved in 26 of the 28 lesions up to 25 mm in diameter. Two lesions, both with fibrosis from prior attempted resection, had trace residual tissue necessitating cauterization with argon plasma. Five lesions measuring 30 mm to 60 mm all required piecemeal resection. There was one complication, a postpolypectomy bleed.Small number of patients and retrospective design.EMR may be performed safely and effectively by using an inexpensive, over-the-counter 0.15% HA preparation. Further studies are needed to verify the results of this study and to compare the safety and efficacy of this HA preparation with saline solution.

Abstract

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2010 for articles related to enteral, esophageal, duodenal, and colonic stents. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2010 for articles related to automated endoscope reprocessors, using the words endoscope reprocessing, endoscope cleaning, automated endoscope reprocessors, and high-level disinfection. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 for articles related to endoscopic tattooing by using the Keywords tattooing, colonic, endoscopic, India ink, indocyanine green in different search term combinations. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to personal protection equipment by using the key words "personal protection equipment" (exp Protective Clothing/ or exp Protective Devices/ or exp Masks/ or exp Occupational Exposure/'') "infection control" paired with "Endoscopy." For the radiation section, the following key words were used: "radiation and endoscopy," "radiation and ERCP," and "radiation safety." For the ergonomics section, the following key words were used: "ergonomics of endoscopy," "endoscopist injury," "medical ergonomics," "endoscopy and musculoskeletal strain," "musculoskeletal injury and endoscopists," "occupational diseases and endoscopy," "cumulative trauma disorder and endoscopy," "repetitive strain injury and endoscopy." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such situations, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the ASGE Governing Board. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients requiring enteral feeding access by using the keywords "endoscopy," "percutaneous," "gastrostomy," "jejunostomy," "nasogastric," "nasoenteric," "nasojejunal," "transnasal," "feeding tube," "enteric," and "button." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Abstract

Barrett's esophagus (BE) has been detected in approximately 10% of patients with chronic GERD. Previous studies demonstrated a similar prevalence of BE in asymptomatic adults.To determine the prevalence of BE in asymptomatic women.We invited women scheduled for routine screening colonoscopy (for colorectal cancer) and women undergoing endoscopic examination before bariatric surgery to participate. Patients experiencing heartburn symptoms more than once per month were excluded.Outpatients at Stanford University and Palo Alto VA Health Care System.Biopsies of the esophagogastric junction in the setting of suspected BE, and completion of symptom and health-related quality of life questionnaires to ensure that subjects were asymptomatic.Identification of BE.We detected BE in 8 (6%) of 126 subjects, including 3 (5%) of 61 of the women in the colorectal cancer screening cohort and 5 (8%) of 65 of the women in the pre-bariatric surgery cohort, all of whom had BE measuring 2 cm or less (P = .30). Patients found to have BE were more likely to be older (mean age 60 years vs 49 years, respectively; P = .04), but there was no difference in mean body mass index, ethnicity, or tobacco or alcohol use between patients with and without BE. BE was only present in pre-bariatric surgery subjects younger than the age of 50 and was most common in the 61- to 70-year age cohort in both groups. Erosive esophagitis, microscopic reflux changes, and Helicobacter pylori infection were not more common in the pre-bariatric surgery group.Small number of subjects with BE detected.Short-segment BE was detected in 6% of asymptomatic women undergoing screening endoscopic examinations.

Abstract

Patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y bariatric surgery undergo screening esophagoduodenoscopy (EGD) during preoperative evaluation. The hypothesis is to examine the utility of this examination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract findings at screening EGD in patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y bariatric surgery. A secondary aim was to determine whether preprocedure symptoms could predict findings at EGD.We evaluated records of patients undergoing EGD prior to bariatric surgery between 2000 and 2005 at the Stanford University Medical Center. Clinical, endoscopic, and pathological data were analyzed. The prevalence of endoscopic findings of clinical significance was determined.Two hundred seventy two complete patient records were identified and included in the study. Of these, 237 (87%) were female and 197 (72%) were Caucasian. The mean age was 43 +/- 9.68 years and mean body mass index was 48 +/- 7.95 kg/m(2). Of the 272 patients, 33 (12%) had EGD findings of clinical significance including erosive esophagitis (3.7%), Barrett's esophagus (3.7%), gastric ulcers (2.9%), erosive gastritis (1.8%), duodenal ulcers (0.7%), and gastric carcinoid (0.3%). No patients had malignancy. Of these 33 patients, 22 (67%) had UGI symptoms.Significant findings at screening EGD were found in 12% of patients. While EGD may be low-yield, the findings could be useful in guiding clinical decision making.

Abstract

With the epidemic increase in obesity in the USA and consequent increased demand for bariatric surgery, new complications of the surgery are being described. The most common surgery practiced is the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP). Unraveling of suture material at the gastrojejunal anastomosis may occur, which may be troublesome if nonabsorbable suture is employed. We describe, for the first time, two patients who developed obstructive symptoms as a consequence of food matter/bezoars entrapped within a mesh of unraveled nonabsorbable suture material at their anastomoses. One of these patients also developed ulceration, presumably as a result of pressure necrosis from the entrapped bezoar. We describe a third patient where the placement of nonabsorbable sutures led to obstructive symptoms by limiting distensibility at an otherwise satisfactory anastomosis. We also describe for the first time, the use of a new endoscopic scissors in cutting luminal suture material with subsequent resolution of the clinical problem.

Abstract

The mechanism by which pancreas divisum may lead to recurrent episodes of acute pancreatitis in a subset of individuals is unknown. Abnormalities of the cystic fibrosis gene product (CFTR) have been implicated in the genesis of idiopathic chronic pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to determine if CFTR function is abnormal in patients with pancreas divisum and recurrent acute pancreatitis (PD/RAP).A total of 69 healthy control subjects, 12 patients with PD/RAP, 16 obligate heterozygotes with a single CFTR mutation, and 95 patients with cystic fibrosis were enrolled. CFTR function was analyzed by nasal transepithelial potential difference testing in vivo. The outcomes of the PD/RAP patients following endoscopic and surgical treatments were concomitantly analyzed.Direct measurement of CFTR function in nasal epithelium in response to isoproterenol demonstrated that the values for PD/RAP were intermediate between those observed for healthy controls and cystic fibrosis patients. The median value was 13 mV for PD/RAP subjects, which was statistically different from healthy controls (22 mV, p= 0.001) and cystic fibrosis pancreatic sufficient (-1 mV, p < 0.0001) and pancreatic insufficient (-3 mV, p < 0.0001) patients.These results suggest a link between CFTR dysfunction and recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients with pancreas divisum and may explain why a subset of patients with pancreas divisum develops recurrent acute pancreatitis.